2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt

Status
Not open for further replies.

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,246
Full video
published May 7, 2017
Israel Palestinian part of the interview between 5:00 - 8:30
He does offer no advice or direction for what the Palestinians can do if not BDS in his answer to the follow up question after saying he doesn't support BDS. 7:04 .
That what almost 2 years ago and he might have something by now.
Re: no advice given

His solution is to change US policy, not put the onus on Palestinians to change Israel and current US position. He criticizes the US policy of giving one-sided support to Israel with unlimited monetary and military support.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,625
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.

It's like she's 3 decades behind.
You're going to have be more specific because that describes millions of Democrats.

I agree she's done bad shit as a prosecutor, but how does that measure up to GOP prosecutors?

Her gun stance is being pro-gun control, banning assault weapons and universal background checks. And she happens to own a gun. How is that like a Republican?

Politicians having wealthy donors has been partisan for a long, long time. As in 1896.

And how "old" are you talking?

Protection of status quo and white supremacy
This too vague, can you be more specific?

But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
Sure I can, unless you've ignored my posts about the various candidates. "Party annointed"? You think centrists and liberals shouldn't be able to run for president in their own primaries now?

I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
His solution is to change US policy, not put the onus on Palestinians to change Israel and current US position. He criticizes the US policy of giving one-sided support to Israel with unlimited monetary and military support.
After taking away the option of BDS and not advising anything to replace it that's basically saying to them to do nothing until an external force does something to save them. That's got to be a tough thing for them to accept as it doesn't appear that the US decreasing monetary and military support for Israel will ever happen. It just seems like more talk and stall as the walls close in on them.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,922
New York City
I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
The least you could do is pretend you live in a different timeline and placate people who want to have discussion on their terms and not the terms that that most realistically emulate the coming election. Not doing this is the problem in the first place and nothing else could possibly be.
 

Boiled Goose

Member
Nov 2, 2017
8,260
You're going to have be more specific because that describes millions of Democrats.

I agree she's done bad shit as a prosecutor, but how does that measure up to GOP prosecutors?

Her gun stance is being pro-gun control, banning assault weapons and universal background checks. And she happens to own a gun. How is that like a Republican?

Politicians having wealthy donors has been partisan for a long, long time. As in 1896.

And how "old" are you talking?



This too vague, can you be more specific?



Sure I can, unless you've ignored my posts about the various candidates. "Party annointed"? You think centrists and liberals shouldn't be able to run for president in their own primaries now?

I'd probably agree with plenty of what you have to say about the Dems as they are deeply flawed. However, it's difficult to have that conversation when political threads become polarising by simply being an openly loyal Democrat. When that's been a normal pastime for Americans, among other nations, for centuries.
Gop? Strawman. Said right wing.
Shouldn't be allowed to run? Strawman. Never said that
See why it's hard to have a rational discussion with you? :)

And yes. Guns and donors are problematic.
And so are centrists. Not being as bad as insane gop is not good enough. Sorry.

Also. Party loyalty is gross. How about you support actual principles instead?
 
Last edited:

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,625
The least you could do is pretend you live in a different timeline and placate people who want to have discussion on their terms and not the terms that that most realistically emulate the coming election. Not doing this is the problem in the first place and nothing else could possibly be.
I backed up my arguments with facts and in greater detail based on the political parameters of the primaries showing Kamala Harris is a not a right winger. Why would I not want to debate abut politics based on our reality, rather than a fantasy time since that would be a waste of timeline for both of us. If they want their non-establishment candidates to win this election it'll happen in a realistic setting regardless whether I placate to alternative timelines where Democrats are right wingers. And it was barely a discussion, when I tried to get more in depth I didn't get anywhere.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
Protection of status quo and white supremacy

It's like she's 3 decades behind.

But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
Please elaborate on these issues that are troubling you about Harris involving criminal justice, health care, donors, guns, protection of the status quo and white supremacy.
These are deep complex issues and it's impossible to know what you're referring to and what troubles you specifically with just these headers.
 
Last edited:

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,370
Minnesota
Why would I not want to debate abut politics based on our reality, rather than a fantasy time since that would be a waste of time for both of us.
Intellectual curiosity compels people to have hypothetical discussions all the time. It's how new ideas and solutions develop.

Having said that, this is the 2020 primary thread, so the discussion is rightfully limit to relevant topics.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,048
Banning all guns is the most contentious policy you could make on top of being the least important in the face of everything else. Sensible gun control is all that should be pushed atm - even among Republican voters who seem to think the phrase "gun control" is a four letter word.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,625
Gop? Strawman. Said right wing.
Shouldn't be allowed to run? Strawman. Never said that
See why it's hard to have a rational discussion with you? :)
Not much difference, and you know it.
Implied.
I was trying to have a rational discussion with you.

And yes. Guns and donors are problematic.
And so are centrists. Not being as bad as insane gop is not good enough. Sorry.
They can be, I agree. But that's not the same as being a right winger.
Then you're in trouble as the centrists dominate politics in the left spectrum in the US.

Also. Party loyalty is gross. How about you support actual principles instead?
Then your candidate is going to have a problem running in our primaries, since party loyalty is key to gaining the White House. I do, it's not mutually exclusive.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Member
Dec 26, 2018
7,625
Intellectual curiosity compels people to have hypothetical discussions all the time. It's how new ideas and solutions develop.

Having said that, this is the 2020 primary thread, so the discussion is rightfully limit to relevant topics.
Except it wasn't framed as an alternative time line, the framing was that Kamala Harris was a right winger in this reality.
 

JVIDICAN

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,674
Chicagoland
Let's just say you'll lose a lot more people than you could possibly hope to gain pushing a full on gun ban. Improving Gun control and banning AR's should the priority at the moment.
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,370
Minnesota
No, they're insignificant.
Even people who want to "ban all guns" don't think farmers in rural Wisconsin shouldn't have a shotgun to shoot coyotes trying to kill their livestock or something.
I suppose it is true that NO one would be a stretch.

But they are insignificant.
You know, looking at the data sets we have now, I'm gonna walk back the 'not insignificant' angle, because I was conflating the electorate's political will to ban handguns (and not just assault rifles) with all guns. Yes, technically, there doesn't appear to be significant support for banning shotguns, so I concede that point. Though I'd raise the point that many of the guns that people own now, a not insignificant portion of the electorate supports outright banning.

Except it wasn't framed as an alternative time line, the framing was that Kamala Harris was a right winger in this reality.
I was just speaking generally. Not about Kamala.
 

Boiled Goose

Member
Nov 2, 2017
8,260
Not much difference, and you know it.
Implied.
I was trying to have a rational discussion with you.


They can be, I agree. But that's not the same as being a right winger.
Then you're in trouble as the centrists dominate politics in the left spectrum in the US.


Then your candidate is going to have a problem running in our primaries, since party loyalty is key to gaining the White House. I do, it's not mutually exclusive.
Sorry but Where the fuck did I imply ANY candidate SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO RUN? Where? How can I have a rational honest discussion with you when after I call out a strawman argument you then suggest I implied it?

My candidate? Projection. What's to politically expedient for a candidate is irrelevant to what's right for me to support as a principle. Party loyalty is something that I don't give a fuck about at all. And neither should you. Of course , because the gop is insane, there's almost no case that a decent candidate would ever vote with gop. But always supporting Democrats? FUCK THAT. That would mean agreeing that criticism of Israel should be punishable (absurd and constitutional violation) and decrying Omar, which is so gross I can't even fathom Democratic leadership did this.
 

Chaos Legion

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,894
Banning all guns is the most contentious policy you could make on top of being the least important in the face of everything else. Sensible gun control is all that should be pushed atm - even among Republican voters who seem to think the phrase "gun control" is a four letter word.
Thoughts and prayers isn't exclusive to the right, I guess.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,048
Thoughts and prayers isn't exclusive to the right, I guess.
I guess, but you're clearly wrong in assuming my post was anything resembling "thoughts and prayers." I'm for gun control; most of the country is for gun control; gun control is happening in congress as we speak and it's bound go even further. I'm not, however, in support of a fool's errand such as "banning all guns" at this stage of the game; it would have any candidate advocating for it taken for a joke.
 
Last edited:

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,246
After taking away the option of BDS and not advising anything to replace it that's basically saying to them to do nothing until an external force does something to save them. That's got to be a tough thing for them to accept as it doesn't appear that the US decreasing monetary and military support for Israel will ever happen. It just seems like more talk and stall as the walls close in on them.
He's not taking BDS away from anybody -- he just doesn't support it personally/doesn't think it's productive -- I disagree with that, but it's dumb to lump him with people that literally ban BDS.

He's running for president. US changing their relationship with Israel/Palestine would naturally fall on him and a dem government.

Like, what do you think the Palestinians can do to change the mind of Trump and Bibi...? I think it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that Israel is able to do what they do because they have the unquestioning backing of the US, and that can only change by electing someone that thinks it needs to change.

edit: and Bernie is still one of the more pro Palestine candidates running as far as I know. He's not the only one to vote against the anti-BDS laws, but I don't think any of the frontrunners are actively pro-BDS or have more left views on Palestine. There are a lot of reasons to prefer other candidates over Bernie but him being soft on Israel is not one of them.
 
Last edited:

Jeb

Avenger
Mar 14, 2018
1,014
Full video
published May 7, 2017
Israel Palestinian part of the interview between 5:00 - 8:30
He does offer no advice or direction for what the Palestinians can do if not BDS in his answer to the follow up question after saying he doesn't support BDS. 7:04 .
That what almost 2 years ago and he might have something by now.
Wow, I was disappointed in Bernie on BDS, but he just killed any respect I have left for him.

And yes I know most politicians are worse, but his calls for Palestinians rights in the 2016 debate gave me respect for him where I had none for his peers.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
He's not taking BDS away from anybody -- he just doesn't support it personally/doesn't think it's productive -- I disagree with that, but it's dumb to lump him with people that literally ban BDS.

He's running for president. US changing their relationship with Israel/Palestine would naturally fall on him and a dem government.

Like, what do you think the Palestinians can do to change the mind of Trump and Bibi...?
Perhaps you're not intentionally misreading, so to clarify : taking it away was meant within the confines of the discussion of the the interview. It's what led to the follow up question that without BDS what could they do.
 

Chaos Legion

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,894
I guess, but you're clearly wrong in assuming my post was anything resembling "thoughts and prayers." I'm for gun control; most of the country is for gun control; gun control is happening in congress as we speak and it's bound go even further. I'm not, however, in support of a fool's errand such as "banning all guns" at this stage of the game; it would have any candidate advocating for it taken for a joke.
Legislation that will die in the senate.

Banning all guns may be impossible, but far more aggressive gun control policy than currently contemplated deserves just as much attention and fervor as UBI, eating the billionaires, et al.
 

weirder

Avenger
Oct 31, 2017
2,833
Challenging white supremacy too uncomfortable for comfy centrists.
Speaking of white supremacy. Please, provide some elaboration on your post about Kamala Harris protecting white supremacy.

Criminal justice.
Healthcare.
Guns.
Donors.
Protection of status quo and white supremacy

It's like she's 3 decades behind.

But of course a hyper partisan such as yourself can't recognize flaws in party annointed nominees.
Please elaborate on these issues that are troubling you about Harris involving criminal justice, health care, donors, guns, protection of the status quo and white supremacy.
These are deep complex issues and it's impossible to know what you're referring to and what troubles you specifically with just these headers.
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
16,376
Official Staff Communication
Again, this isn't a thread for general political discussion. We've got those already.
 

AztecComplex

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,371
I’m getting increasingly nervous that Major Pete could win the nomination. Not because I don’t like him or think he’d be a bad president, quite the contrary! But because I’m more and more convinced that if registered Democrats give him the nomination we’d be resigning to 4 more years of Trump.

One thing is to elect a black man but, sadly, I don’t think the US is ready to vote for a married gay man. No way in hell. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am. You have to bring independents and some moderate republicans to win this. A gay man I’m afraid will never be able to.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,454
I’m getting increasingly nervous that Major Pete could win the nomination. Not because I don’t like him or think he’d be a bad president, quite the contrary! But because I’m more and more convinced that if registered Democrats give him the nomination we’d be resigning to 4 more years of Trump.

One thing is to elect a black man but, sadly, I don’t think the US is ready to vote for a married gay man. No way in hell. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I am. You have to bring independents and some moderate republicans to win this. A gay man I’m afraid will never be able to.
I understand the concern but watching Pete talk about and deal with his sexuality is pretty impressive. I think any losses from homophobes would be ameliorated by his Midewestern appeal. I was chatting about my partner about him the other day and we were discussing how Pete feels Obama 08'-like in a way-- a plan so wacky it just might work. And not that I think Obama is wacky but at the time, a black candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama seemed kind of nuts. But his ability to reach people and to campaign helped transcend that. I think Pete could do the same.

All that said, I don't think he'll get the nomination.
 

AztecComplex

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,371
I understand the concern but watching Pete talk about and deal with his sexuality is pretty impressive. I think any losses from homophobes would be ameliorated by his Midewestern appeal. I was chatting about my partner about him the other day and we were discussing how Pete feels Obama 08'-like in a way-- a plan so wacky it just might work. And not that I think Obama is wacky but at the time, a black candidate with the name Barack Hussein Obama seemed kind of nuts. But his ability to reach people and to campaign helped transcend that. I think Pete could do the same.

All that said, I don't think he'll get the nomination.
Yeah i hate feeling like this. He may be my favorite candidate but I’m sad to say I think his sexuality could be our downfall if nominated. The US is not ready for a gay president, I’m afraid.
 

emag

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,117
Yeah i hate feeling like this. He may be my favorite candidate but I’m sad to say I think his sexuality could be our downfall if nominated. The US is not ready for a gay president, I’m afraid.
Ready or not, the US shouldn't have another war crime denier and anti-whistleblower in command.

If not for his sexuality, Pete would be chumming it up with Pence and the right.
 

Rats

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,109
I don't think a gay man is unelectable. The states that would hard pass on a gay president aren't gonna vote for a Democrat in the first place, and I feel like swing states are generally more tolerant on this point than most people realize. Pete's age and relative inexperience would probably hurt him more than his sexuality.
 

Damisa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
192
Ready or not, the US shouldn't have another war crime denier and anti-whistleblower in command.

If not for his sexuality, Pete would be chumming it up with Pence and the right.
Pete’s not my first choice but this is silly.He supports
single payer health care
Increased taxes on the wealthy
Green new deal
Is pro choice
Wants universal background checks for guns

It’s ridiculous to suggest only his sexuality is keeping him from being a republican. Why is it always Bernie fans who post like this? Not everyone even slightly to the right of Bernie is a secret Republican
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,454
Pete’s not my first choice but this is silly.He supports
single payer health care
Increased taxes on the wealthy
Green new deal
Is pro choice
Wants universal background checks for guns

It’s ridiculous to suggest only his sexuality is keeping him from being a republican. Why is it always Bernie fans who post like this? Not everyone even slightly to the right of Bernie is a secret Republican
The dude also wrote an essay in 2000 in praise of Sanders-- fifteen years before he came out.

But yeah, he'd for sure be an arch conservative if he weren't gay. Really, what a bizarre, desperate and offensive take that is.
 

emag

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,117
The dude also wrote an essay in 2000 in praise of Sanders
Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.

Buttigieg's book also makes clear that he doesn't subscribe to progressive values, from his description of his college years to his military service (including his incredible position that no one could have known Saddam didn't have nukes) to his time as mayor. He's a white elitist through and through, one who couldn't care less about social activists, the poor, the homeless, brown people, or black people.
 

Mercury Fred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,454
Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.
Yes, I've read it. He doesn't praise Buchanan in it. That's a lie, much like your assertion that Pete would be an arch conservative if he were not gay. What he says about Buchanan is this: "Republican presidential hopeful George W. Bush uses the centrist rhetoric of “compassionate conservatism” while Pat Buchanan, once considered a mainstream Republican, has been driven off the ideological edge of the G.O.P."

He praises Sanders for what he sees as his having the courage of his convictions. But you know, that must have been what, his latent gayness talking or...?
 

brainchild

GameXplain
Verified
Nov 25, 2017
7,370
Minnesota
Buttigieg's entry into the essay contest was about Sanders being brave enough to work with Republicans despite using the "socialist" label and contained no positive words for Bernie's policies. (Pete praises Pat Buchanan in the essay, too. He's also explicitly started that he wrote the essay in order to get his foot in the door as a politician.) You can read it for yourself at the JFK Library online.

Buttigieg's book also makes clear that he doesn't subscribe to progressive values, from his description of his college years to his military service (including his incredible position that no one could have known Saddam didn't have nukes) to his time as mayor. He's a white elitist through and through, one who couldn't care less about social activists, the poor, the homeless, brown people, or black people.
This is complete bullshit.
 

Rats

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,109
Here's the part of Pete's essay where he praises Bernie for "working with Republicans."

Sanders has used his unique position as the lone Independent Congressman to help Democrats and Republicans force hearings on the internal structure of the International Monetary Fund, which he sees as excessively powerful and unaccountable. He also succeeded in quietly persuading reluctant Republicans and President Clinton to ban the import of products made by under-age workers. Sanders drew some criticism from the far left when he chose to grudgingly endorse President Clinton’s bids for election and re-election as President. Sanders explained that while he disagreed with many of Clinton’s centrist policies, he felt that he was the best option for America’s working class.
Truly disgusting stuff.

EDIT: And policies:

After numerous political defeats in his traditionally Republican state, Sanders won the office of mayor of Burlington by ten votes. A successful and popular mayor, he went on to win Vermont’s one Congressional seat in 1990. Since then, he has taken many courageous and politically risky stands on issues facing the nation. He has come under fire from various conservative religious groups because of his support for same-sex marriages. His stance on gun control led to NRA-organized media campaigns against him. Sanders has also shown creativity in organizing drug-shopping trips to Canada for senior citizens to call attention to inflated drug prices in the United States.
I mean, he doesn't literally say 'THIS IS A GOOD POLICY" after every example, but with the tone of the essay as a whole that's pretty much implicit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.